Vepur, Vellore District. .. Respondents in both
the writ appeal and
the writ petition
Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent
against the
order passed in W.P.M.P.No.8069 of 2005 and W.V.M.P.No.812 of 2005 in W.P.No.
7388 of 2005 dated 30.3.2005.

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for the issue of writ of mandamus forbearing
the respondents from
implementing the G.O.Ms.No.13 School Education (C2) Department dated 9.2.2005
till the end of the academic
year 2004-05 i.e. 31.5.2005 and issue a
consequential direction to the respondents to consider the grievance of the
elementary
school Head Masters working in the upgraded middle Schools as per
G.O.Ms.No.135 dated 23.8.2002 for replacement, transfer and
postings in the
month of June 2005.

This writ appeal has been filed by an Association calling itself as
Tamilaga Asiriyar Koottani.

2. The writ petition was filed for a mandamus forbearing the
respondents from implementing the G.O.Ms.No.13
School Education (C2)
Department dated 9.2.2005 till the end of the academic year 2004-05 i.e. 31
.5.2005 and for a consequential
direction to the respondents to consider the
grievance of the elementary school Head Masters working in the upgraded middle
schools
as per G.O.Ms.No.39 dated 21.3.2002 and G. O.Ms.No.135 dated
23.8.2002 for replacement, transfer and postings in the month
of June 2005.

3. As per G.O.Ms.No. 13, 676 elementary schools were upgraded as
middle schools and directions were given to fill up
the post of Headmasters in
such upgraded middle schools from the Headmasters in elementary schools on the
pay scale of Rs.5300-150-8300
and B.T. Assistants and Tamil teachers on the
pay scale of Rs.5500-200-9000.

4. In our opinion, the appellant had no locus standi to file the writ
petition or this writ appeal.

5. A Division Bench of this Court in Formation of Indian Network
Marketing Association, Chennai vs. M/s. Apple FMCG
Marketing Pvt. Ltd.
Chennai and others (Writ Appeal No.688 of 2005 dated 7.4.2005) has held that
such writ appeals are liable
to be dismissed on the ground of lack of locus
standi (vide paragraphs 6 to 13). In paragraph - 6 of the said judgment it
was observed :-

" It is well settled that ordinarily a writ petition or writ appeal can only
be filed by someone who is personally aggrieved".

6. In Indian Sugar Mills Association Vs. Secretary to Government,
AIR 1951 All 1 a Full Bench of the Allahabad High
Court held (vide paragraphs
10 and 11) :-

" The further argument is that any person, whether his
interests are directly affected or not, can file
an application challenging
any Act of the Legislature or the order of the Government on the ground that
it is ultra vires. In
this connection we cannot do better than quote the
decision of the learned Judges of the Supreme Court of the United States
in
Commonwealth of Massachusetts V. Andrew W.Mellon, 262 U.S. 447:67 Lawyers
Edn. 1078, Sutherland, J. who delivered the
opinion of the Court quoted with
approval the remarks of Thomson, J. with whom Story, J. concurred, which
were as follows:

"It is only where the rights of persons or property
are involved, and when such rights can be presented
under some judicial form
of proceedings, that courts of justice can interpose relief."
Dealing with the question whether
a single tax-payer can challenge the
enforcement of a Federal Appropriation Act on the ground that it was invalid
and would increase
the burden of his taxes, the learned Judge observed:
"His interest in the moneys of the treasury-partly realised
from taxation and partly from other sources-is shared with millions of others;
is comparatively minute and indeterminable; and
the effect upon future
taxation of any payment out of the funds so remote, fluctuating, and uncertain
that no basis is afforded
for an appeal to the preventive powers of a Court of
equity??If one tax-payer may champion and litigate such a cause, then every
other tax-payer may do the same, not only in respect to the statute hereunder
review, but also in respect of every other appropriation
Act and statute whose
administration requires the outlay of public money, and whose validity may be
questioned. The bare suggestion
of such a result, with its attendant
inconveniences, goes far to sustain the conclusion which we have reached, that
a suit
of this character cannot be maintained."

Those remarks are with reference to a suit. They are much more
applicable to proceedings under Article 226 which
are of a summary and of a
coercive nature without providing for a normal trial or a right of appeal
except in those cases
where a substantial question of interpretation of the
constitution arises. This Court is being flooded with applications under
Article 226 of the Constitution which is seriously affecting the normal work
of the Court. We feel that the time has come when
we may point out that
Article 226 of the Constitution was not intended to provide an alternative
method of redress to the
normal process of a decision in an action brought in
the usual courts established by law. The powers under this Article should
be
sparingly used and only in those clear cases where the rights of a person have
been seriously infringed and he has no other
adequate and specific remedy
available to him".

7. No doubt, the law has developed since the above decision was given
by the Allahabad High Court in the year 1951, yet
it must be reiterated that
the development in the law relating to locus standi in writ petitions only
carved out some exceptions
to the main rule which has been stated correctly by
the Allahabad High Court, and it is not that this main rule itself has been
totally abolished. Exceptions remain exceptions, and do not become the main
rule. Hence, we must reiterate that ordinarily
a writ petition can only be
filed by a person who is personally aggrieved.

"Generally speaking, a person shall have no locus standi to
file a writ petition if he is not personally affected
by the impugned order or
his fundamental rights have neither been directly or substantially invaded nor
is there any imminent danger
of such rights being invaded or his acquired
interests have been violated ignoring the applicable rules. The relief under
Article 226 of the Constitution is based on the existence of a right in favour
of the person invoking the jurisdiction. The exception
to the general rule is
only in cases where the writ applied for is a writ of habeas corpus or quo
warranto or filed in public
interest. It is a matter of prudence, that the
Court confines the exercise of writ jurisdiction to cases where legal wrong or
legal
injuries caused to a particular person or his fundamental rights are
violated, and not to entertain cases of individual
wrong or injury at the
instance of third party where there is an effective legal aid organization
which can take care of such
cases. Even in cases filed in public interest,
the Court can exercise the writ jurisdiction at the instance of a third party
only
when it is shown that the legal wrong or legal injury or illegal burden
is threatened and such person or determined class of persons
is, by reason or
poverty, helplessness or disability or socially or economically disadvantaged
position, unable to approach the
Court for relief (emphasis supplied)."
9. In State of Orissa Vs. Ram Chandra Dev & Another, AIR 1964 SC 685 the
Supreme Court
observed (vide paragraph - 8):-

"But though the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article
226 is wide in that sense, the concluding words
of the article clearly
indicate that before a writ or an appropriate order can be issued in favour of
a party, it must be established
that the party has a right and the said right
is illegally invaded or threatened. The existence of a right is thus the
foundation
of a petition under Article 226".

10. Similarly, in Gadde Venkateswara Rao Vs. Government of Andhra
Pradesh, AIR 1966 SC 828 (vide paragraph- 8) the Supreme
Court observed:-
"The right that can be enforced under Article 226 also shall
ordinarily be the personal
or individual right of the petitioner himself (
emphasis supplied), though in the case of some of the writs like habeas corpus
or
quo warranto this rule may have to be relaxed or modified".

11. In Sand Carrier's Owners' Union and Others Vs. Board of Trustees
for the Port of Calcutta, AIR 1990 Cal 176 it
was observed by the Calcutta
High Court that "a Public Interest Litigation can be moved, where persons
concerned for whose
benefit it is moved are socially and educationally
backward, and Public Interest Litigation is also maintainable in cases such
as
environmental pollution, etc."

However, it was also observed:-

"The members of such association may be affected by a common
order and may have common grievance, but for
the purpose of enforcing the
rights of the members, writ petition at the instance of such association is
not maintainable".

Accordingly, the Calcutta High Court dismissed the writ petition filed
by the Owners' Union.

12. A similar view has been taken in Government Press Employees'
Association, Bangalore Vs. Government of Mysore,
AIR 1962 Mysore 25.

13. In Dr.Duryodhan Sahu Vs. Jitendra Kumar Mishra, (1998) 7 SCC 273
the Supreme Court observed that in service matters
PILs should not be
entertained.

14. Subsequently, in Ashok Kumar Pandey Vs. State of W.B., (2004) 3
SCC 349 ( Vide Paragraph - 16) the Supreme Court observed:-
"Though in Dr. Duryodhan Sahu Vs. Jitendra Kumar Mishra
(1998) 7 SCC 273 this Court held that in service
matters PILs should not be
entertained, the inflow of so-called PILs involving service matters continues
unabated in the courts
and strangely are entertained. The least the High
Courts could do is to throw them out on the basis of the said decision".

15. In our opinion, if any educational institution or Head Master or
Teacher is aggrieved by the impugned G.O.Ms.No.13
dated 9.2.2005 they can file
a writ petition in this Court challenging the same, but the appellant -
association had no
locus standi in the matter. It cannot be said that the
educational institutions or Head Masters are so poor that they are unable
to
approach this Court. If any particular educational institution or Head Master
has a grievance against the impugned G.O.Ms.No.13
dated 9.2.2005 it is for
such person to file a writ petition or writ appeal, and not for any
association. The writ
appeal is dismissed on the ground of lack of locus
standi. The writ petition is dismissed for the same reason. W.A.M.P.No.1384
of 2005 is dismissed.